browser_run_code

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must convey all behavioral traits. It correctly states the function receives 'page' as argument and provides an example, but it does not disclose what happens with the return value, error handling, or any side effects. While adequate, it lacks completeness.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise: two sentences plus an example. It could be more front-loaded with the exact purpose, but it is efficient and contains no fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the function argument and provides a usage example. Missing details about return values and error handling, but overall sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameter with a description, so the description adds marginal value. The example format is helpful but not essential beyond the schema's definition.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The verb 'Run' and resource 'Playwright code snippet' are specific and clear. The tool is well-distinguished from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_navigate, which perform specific actions, whereas this tool executes arbitrary code.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for executing custom Playwright code, which is a clear use case. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context from sibling tools makes it reasonably clear that for standard actions, other tools should be used.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.